Prop. 8 donors ask U.S. court for anonymity

Citing previous death threats and harassment, backers of the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will ask a U.S. District Court on Thursday to exempt the measure's campaign contributors from further public disclosure.

A semi-annual disclosure filing is due Saturday, as part of the state campaign finance law to ensure that voters can know who is backing candidates and ballot measures. The upcoming filing will include contributions of $100 and more made since the Nov. 4 ballot measure was approved.

A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that disclosure exemptions could be permitted if plaintiffs demonstrate a "reasonable probability" that those identified would be subjected to "threats, harassment, or reprisals."

"There has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Prop. 8 campaign," said Ron Prentice, who helped lead the campaign. The lawsuit sites specific death threats received by previously disclosed donors, vandalism to private property, and white powder - eventually determined to be harmless - sent to two Mormon churches.

Opponents of the exemption include state Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and the state's Fair Political Practices Commission. Brown said that victims should sue or file criminal charges rather than "carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone."

"Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors," Brown said in a written statement opposing the exemption request, which will be heard in Sacramento.

The lawsuit is independent of the suit filed by Prop. 8 foes to overturn the gay marriage ban. That issue is expected to be heard by the state Supreme Court in March.

In addition to seeking to shield the names of recent donors and to expunge the names of those previously disclosed, Prop. 8 supporters also say that all donor disclosures for ballot measures should be declared unconstitutional.

Richard L. Hasen, who specializes in election law at Loyola Law School, said the effort to shield the names of specific donors for Prop. 8 will be an easier argument to make than that for a blanket exemption on all ballot measure disclosures.

"In this case, we have seen credible claims of threats," said Hasen, who has not taken a public position on the issue.

Rick Jacobs, chairman of Prop. 8 foes' Courage Campaign, distanced himself from the threats - but says they shouldn't cause a longstanding state law to be set aside.

"Nobody should be making threats," Jacobs said. "There should never be physical intimidation. But transparency is transparency. You shouldn't be able to hide the people fueling your campaign with their money."

Prop. 8 backers' will make oral arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., and seek a temporary exemption from filing donors' names. If granted, the court would then hold further deliberations to determine a final decision.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said the last time a donor exemption was granted in California was 1989.

"A U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Socialist Action Party didn't need to disclose people who contributed to its candidate for San Francisco supervisor," Winger said. "It was an ACLU case. The city of San Francisco gave in and signed a consent decree."

In the Prop. 8 case, Hasen said that the court could agree to shield the names of some of the measure's donors.

"I think each donor should have to make their own case," he said. "Or identified groups of donors should have to make their own case, such as very small donors or industries that might be particularly targeted or geographic areas where donors would be more vulnerable, like San Francisco."

However, Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman, who sides with the Prop. 8 proponents in the case, disagreed, citing the 1982 Supreme Court precedent.

"I don't find anything in that case saying there has to be individualized threats," Eastman said. "The whole point is the prospective threat of economic or physical reprisal. How do you know you're safe from a threat? You don't wait until the threat has been made."

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.